Road/Rail Bridge Safety Barriers

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What modifications have been made to road approaches to rail bridges since the accident at Great Heck on 21st February 2001.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, following the accident at Great Heck, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Highways Agency to review its standards for nearside safety barriers on major roads. The report will be published very shortly. Decisions on any actions to improve safety at particular locations are best taken by the relevant highway authority and rail infrastructure provider in the light of the findings of this report.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, can the Minister give the reasons for the report being delayed? According to a reply on 16th July last year by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it was originally promised for last autumn. Will he confirm that the Government regard it as completely unacceptable that railway services and lines should be put in danger because of traffic on motorways over which the railway service has no control? Can he give an assurance that, rather than arbitrary standards being applied, each particular bridge over a railway line will be looked at individually to make certain that the kind of incident which took place at Great Heck could not happen again simply because the barrier was not long enough?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we do not have long to wait for the reports, which will be published by the end of February. Once we have the reports before us, we shall be able to have a fuller debate. I can confirm that the Government's commitment to security on the railways is absolute and very strong, hence the clear action taken by the Deputy Prime Minister a year ago. Under the circumstances and given the weight of the issues and the width of the two inquiries that have been under way, I do not think that we have seen a particularly slow reaction. I accept that we wish to do all that is practicable to reduce deaths in such circumstances. However, they were very unusual circumstances indeed. Therefore one would expect to see a proper risk assessment process carried out by the relevant highway authorities and rail infrastructure provider.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, over 1,600 accidents in which lorries hit bridges were reported over the past year. Of those, 31 were considered potentially serious. What action are the Government taking? All that has happened so far is that a map has been published by the AA and lorry drivers are allowed to put a notice in their cabs. However, no real action has been taken to prevent these potentially very serious accidents.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, incidents in which lorries hit bridges are an important and serious issue, but the issue is slightly wider in scope than the Question on which we are focused today, which essentially is the risk of vehicles coming off the highway and going on to railways. Without too much wishing to trade statistics with the noble Lord, the number of vehicles driven accidentally off the highway on to the railways is relatively small. The figure is higher than we would wish but amounts to only 12 a year. Of those 12 only one incident resulted in a train hitting the vehicle. As I am sure that the reports will say, one has to keep a sense of proportion when considering what is the best and most effective action to take.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State seems to have learnt nothing from last year? Is he further aware that the spin doctor in the transport department planned to release,
	"less than encouraging statistics on rail safety and punctuality",
	tomorrow, but was prevented by Martin Sixsmith, the senior press officer of the department? Can the Minister give an assurance today that those statistics relating to safety, which is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper, will be released as a Statement given by the Minister to the House and that no further attempts will be made to bury bad news?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, given the width of matters that could have been raised on the important issue of rail safety, I am slightly surprised that the noble Viscount has chosen this particular angle, which is essentially a very party political one. With regard to my right honourable friend in another place, I think that he knew a great deal a year ago and I am sure that, like all Members of both Houses, he is learning even more as time passes. I am delighted to say that I know nothing of the issue to which the noble Viscount has referred. I am therefore not in a position to give an answer.

Swanwick Air Traffic Control

Lord Bowness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the transfer of national air traffic control services to Swanwick has been successful.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pleased to say that on 27th January the Swanwick centre in Hampshire, which is one of the most advanced air traffic control centres in the world, began successful operations.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he be prepared to tell the House whether that successful transfer is in any way threatened by the reported financial situation at NATS? It has been reported that the banks have threatened to withdraw their support if the Government do not guarantee the company's position. Furthermore, NATS itself has been reported as having given warning of its possible financial collapse if it cannot raise very substantially its own charges; to say nothing of further reports about the need to modernise the NATS computer systems such a short time after the opening of the new centre. Is not this a matter on which the House should be advised, if only to allay those worries?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can state categorically that there is no threat to safety or air traffic security as a result of the challenge that has been posed to NATS in the light of the tragic circumstances of 11th September. As one would expect, the volume of air traffic has reduced consequent on the 11th September tragedy. We do not know for how long that reduction in traffic will persist. There clearly is a challenge to the board and shareholders of NATS to ensure that their investment plans in the future can be sustained at the level that they would wish. All shareholders, with the Government—who of course are shareholders—are working well and positively to address that issue by a variety of means. I can assure the noble Lord that he should not believe everything that is written in the papers on this matter.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not giving him advance notice of this question. Can he tell the House what is happening at Prestwick? The project has apparently been postponed because of what happened on 11th September, but, as air traffic is expected to increase, would it not be highly dangerous not to proceed with Prestwick? As the passage of the Bill on NATS was contingent on Prestwick going ahead, will that promise be kept?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the implication that I always get advance notice of any supplementary question from the Benches behind me. I hope that all noble Lords will pay attention to that because it would be most helpful. In practice, the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy for air traffic control is still strongly in place. We believe that it is right and necessary. Quite clearly there has been a reduction in air traffic volumes and there is not the same level of urgency for the second centre to be brought on-stream immediately. Nevertheless, some of the preparatory work is going ahead at present. Site works and piling are under way and a new radar processing system is currently being installed. We expect that, in good time, the second centre, at Prestwick, will be opened.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, has there been any increase in capacity as a result of the transfer of the London control centre to Swanwick? If not, when does the Minister expect that increase in capacity to arise?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, there has been a very substantial increase in capacity. As I signalled, this is one of the most advanced air traffic control systems in the world, which, as far as we can predict, should make it possible to cope with traffic growth for the next 30 years. Over the past few weeks there has been a sensible process of progressive implementation of the system to ensure that air traffic controllers are fully conversant with the new systems and the new environment and have confidence in them before volumes are raised to the full level. So far, it is going extremely well.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend define what he has said a little more? He said that Prestwick would be available "in good time". What does he mean by that? When will work start there? Will he be a little more specific than he was in the debate on the air traffic control system? Will my noble friend take it from me that the work that has been done at Swanwick is admirable? It places British air traffic control in a very good situation.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend both for his question and his comment on Swanwick. It has been a success. We shall not go over the delays and the implementation challenges, but now that it is up and running it is an excellent centre. One must commend all those involved in bringing it on-stream and into operation. As to Prestwick, the position is basically clear. As I signalled in an earlier answer, work is progressing although not at the full level. The original plan was that it would come on-stream about 2007 or 2008. There may be a couple of years delay, but there is clearly no immediate operational need for the full centre. However, our commitment to it remains firm.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the part-privatisation of NATS was largely debt financed, which has left it with a highly leveraged balance sheet? As the Government currently hold a 49 per cent stake in the National Air Traffic Service, do they agree with its proposal that it should raise its charges by an average of 5 per cent a year for the next three years?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the level of charges that NATS is entitled to impose is not a matter for me or for the Government. The cap is set by the Civil Aviation Authority rather than by the Government. In this circumstance, one would expect that a company of this kind would be looking at all options to see whether it could reduce expenditure, increase income and strengthen its equity. No doubt those are some of the issues being considered.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, is it not a fact that there have been increased delays in air traffic since the transfer to Swanwick? On two occasions recently, I have been delayed for more than two hours and the blame has been firmly put on Swanwick rather than on anyone else.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as is the tradition of the House, one always expresses deep regret that any noble Lord has been delayed for any reason whatever. The statistics I have show that there were in the very early days some delays as a result of settling-in the new systems. But the figures I have been given are that the average delay per flight is now three-and-a-half minutes compared to an average before the switch to Swanwick of two minutes. Clearly that is a movement in the wrong direction, but it is hardly of great significance. I mentioned previously that there has been progressive implementation. The centre is not being loaded fully at this stage. It is being governed back so that air traffic controllers have plenty of time to get used to the systems. That is what is causing the slight delays. We can be confident that these will be eradicated relatively rapidly.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of NATS. Does the Minister agree that any delays related to Swanwick that are currently being experienced were built into the planning process for the introduction of the new system? Secondly, will he join me in commending all those involved in devising and introducing what is probably one of the most complex systems in Europe? It is equally important to recognise that the transfer of this system from its former establishments to Swanwick was one of the most complex arrangements that could have been undertaken. Will the Minister also take note that, in the current year, charges in the UK have gone down, while charges elsewhere in Europe, particularly following the events of 11th September, have increased substantially?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I agree that the reason for the delays is essentially that an extremely prudent approach was taken to bringing the new centre on-stream. I signalled that point earlier, although I did not put it quite as explicitly. Judgments were made that the centre would process only a certain amount of traffic at any one time in an attempt to ensure that there was not an excessive load on air traffic controllers. That has led to very slight delays. It is a highly prudent way of bringing such a system on-stream. The staff and management are to be commended; so far, the process has gone extremely well. Let us trust that it continues to do so. With regard to charges, the current formula by which NATS is governed is a cap of RPI-minus X—it is slightly complicated—whereas in Germany and elsewhere this year charge increases of 10 per cent or more have been imposed.

Lord Burnham: My Lords—

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it must be the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, surely the Government must be interested in the fact, even though they cannot influence it, that—as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has reminded us—the plan for a progressive reduction in charges by annual amounts of 4 and 5 per cent over several years has now been abandoned by NATS in favour of a planned increase in charges over the same period.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government are interested in the situation in a number of ways—as a shareholder, and as a government with an overarching concern regarding these issues. The reality is that, while air traffic volumes are down, the revenues to NATS—whether or not it is in a PPP— will also be down. In a worsening situation in terms of income, there are only two options: either income charges go up, or other forms of funding are introduced. There is a strong argument that the costs of air travel should be borne by the users rather than more generally. There is certainly a debate to be had with the CAA—and I am sure that NATS will put the case—about the need to reconsider the level of the cap.

Tourism

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they are planning to do to help the tourism industry in Great Britain, given the 16 per cent reduction in foreign tourists visiting Great Britain in 2001.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are investing £65 million in tourism this year—more than ever before. This is justified because the number of overseas visitors arriving on holiday in the UK in 2001 was down by 14 per cent on the figure for 2000. In January, the British Tourist Authority launched its new £5 million campaign to help tourism recover from the events of 2001. The campaign will promote special offers provided by over 1,000 tourism businesses.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she consider boosting the £5 million now allocated to the "UK is OK" campaign in order to encourage tourists from several of the world's wealthiest countries to return to this country? Considerable government support has gone to the farming industry, and rightly so. Will my noble friend recognise that the tourism and hospitality industries have an equal claim to attention and finance?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the British Tourist Authority along with the industry has made a bid to the Government for a contribution to its plans for a major tourism recovery programme this year. The Government are currently considering their response. We are, however, encouraging the BTA and its partners to attempt to maximise the industry contribution.
	In reply to my noble friend's second question, the Government committed an extra £14.5 million to the recovery campaign. Any extra funding will depend on genuinely additional contributions from the industry.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, when will the Government give some long-term help to the tourism industry by doing something about their two year-old promise to reform our licensing laws? Is the Minister aware that her honourable friend the Minister for Tourism in the other place revealed this month that every year of delay on this matter is costing the hospitality industry £1.9 billion?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the extra cost to the industry. To reform the licensing industry it is necessary to introduce new legislation and the Government are considering that. I cannot at this stage give an indication as to when it is likely to be brought in.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question on the Order Paper draws attention to a problem not far removed from that affecting the film industry; namely, that American companies are not now coming to Britain to film, as we would expect, but are going to places such as Prague? One of the main reasons is that it is increasingly expensive to maintain large groups of people here because of the cost of hotels and restaurants. The same applies to tourists. Overall, the costs in this country are exorbitant. Can the Government do something about it?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government cannot run the private sector. It is a matter for hotels and restaurants to price the services that they offer competitively. The Government can encourage the hotel industry, restaurants and other parts of the tourism industry to do just that. But in the end it is up to them to compete successfully with similar parts of the industry in other countries.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position to say what percentage of the figure she quoted will go to towards those of us involved in tourism in Scotland?

Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I cannot give that answer. I shall see whether one of my colleagues from the Scotland Office is able to provide it.

Lord Paul: My Lords, although I commend what the Government are doing for the tourism industry, manufacturing industry is in much deeper trouble and has been for a much longer period. I declare an interest as someone who is in the manufacturing industry. Why are the Government neglecting this industry?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that his question really does fall outside the Question on the Order Paper.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve the ability of disabled visitors to travel to the United Kingdom easily? I understand that some of the arrangements at airports and ports are particularly difficult.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, this is a matter for the industry—both for the airlines and for the British Airports Authority. They have to be responsive to the legislation relating to disability in the same way as every other area of our national life has to be responsive to it.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, does my noble friend consider that prices and charges in London deter people from visiting not only London but the rest of the country? In view of that, would it be possible for regional and provincial tourist boards to be engaged in more aggressive and positive advertising in order to persuade people that, if they will not come to London, they can enjoy themselves in other parts of the country such as the Yorkshire Dales?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a matter for the industry, not only in London but throughout the country, to try to market its products aggressively and to price its services competitively, as I said earlier. The British Tourist Authority is trying to overcome strong price resistance in its latest campaign, featuring a range of new offers, which the Government very much hope will be successful in bringing more people to the UK.

NHS Hospital Beds

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will ensure that the proposed transfer of "bed blockers" from National Health Service hospitals to rural bed-and-breakfast accommodation will be in the patients' interest.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the department has no involvement with this matter. The countryside development unit of Harper Adams University College for agriculture commissioned a feasibility study into the use of rural bed-and-breakfast establishments for the recuperation of patients who do not need to be in hospital for their care. I understand that the college has not embarked on any discussions with NHS bodies in the area.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister's Answer disconcerts me even more than the newspaper article did. That article said:
	"The aim is to fill spare holiday accommodation during traditionally quiet periods".
	The Member of Parliament who represents the area where the first pilot study scheme is to take place said:
	"it will help the bed and breakfast sector in rural Britain which has had such a tough year with the foot-and-mouth outbreak".
	I am worried that the patients and their health interests may not be the prime concern. I understand that bed-and-breakfast accommodation means the provision of bed and breakfast. How can anyone recover with just bed and breakfast? It must turn into the virtual equivalent of a care home providing at least full care. Very often, people who are discharged from hospital require follow-up visits from physiotherapists or others and even their relatives need to be able to visit. It is essential that the National Health Service becomes involved if the scheme is meant to represent intermediate care.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my experience is that bed-and-breakfast establishments in Shropshire are splendid and of course one would want to encourage members of the public to use them. However, that is not the intent of the National Health Service or the Department of Health. As I have said, this was purely a speculative study by a local college, carried out without any discussion or agreement with the National Health Service. The chairman of the BMA's community care committee said that about the only case that he could imagine in which it might work would be a young man who had perhaps broken a leg and needed somewhere to recuperate after leaving hospital. Otherwise, he said, it is a complete non-runner.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first I declare an interest as the unpaid chairman of the ExtraCare Charitable Trust retirement village appeal in Warrington. Has my noble friend visited one of those admirable villages? If not, will he do so? The standard of life of their inhabitants means that there is less pressure and less need for them to have NHS beds. Will he also examine whether any ways can be found to enable ExtraCare to build more of those wonderful villages?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a dangerous precedent to accept visits offered in that way, but, seeing as the offer comes from my noble friend, I shall be very interested in visiting the proposed village community in Warrington. I am aware of the extraordinarily good work that such villages do. Experience shows that people who live in such communities make fewer pressure demands on the National Health Service because of the care and support that they already receive. It is one of the many ways in which we can provide effective care and support to older people.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in her evidence to the Health Committee yesterday, the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate expressed serious concerns about the possible use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as proposed in the report? Will he assure the House that no such arrangements will be allowed to proceed without the chief inspector's agreement?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is for local authorities and local NHS authorities to decide where intermediate care or care for people who are seeking discharge from hospital ought to be provided. I think that I have already made it clear that I find it very unlikely indeed that the bed-and-breakfast proposal could be a serious runner.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, this is a matter of grave concern to us all. The Minister did not answer my question about how many patients were involved when I asked him on 28th January. Will he at least agree that the number of patients delayed last year was roughly equivalent in days lost to the number of cancelled operations in the same year? Is the Minister encouraging other acute hospitals to follow the example of Birmingham City Hospital, which is reducing the delay in the discharge of patients by planning that discharge from the moment the patient arrives in hospital, or the good example of the East Sussex living at home programme, which removes patients from hospital and rehabilitates them for independent living?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the City Hospital in Birmingham is an excellent hospital that has much to teach others. I have made it clear that the proposal in question came from a rural agricultural college, which was seeking to help the rural economy in Shropshire. The National Health Service and the Department of Health have had no discussions with the college and taken no part in the feasibility study. I cannot make myself clearer on that.
	According to the latest figures, which relate to September, 6 per cent of acute beds in the health service are being used by patients who ought to be out of the hospital. However, the action that is being taken and the extra money that was put in this winter to help local authorities provide better support and care in the community are having an effect. It is also worth pointing out that delayed discharges for patients over 75 have steadily dropped since 1997. The figure of 15.7 per cent in September 1997 has dropped to 12 per cent. We know that we have much further to go, but I believe that health and local authorities are working well together to deal with the issue.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	I shall give a 30-second translation of the Motion, which has been agreed with the usual channels. The only effective change is to take Part 3 of the Bill after Part 4. We shall deal with Part 1, on the Secretary of State's powers, and Part 2, on complaints, and then move to Part 4, which covers police powers for civilians. We shall then take Part 3 along with Parts 5, 6 and 7. I understand that four days have been allocated for consideration in Committee. This is not a timetable Motion. The change is suggested for the convenience of the House.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police Reform Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clause 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clause 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 27, Clause 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 and 35, Schedule 5, Clauses 36 to 42, Schedule 6, Clauses 43 to 55, Clauses 28 to 32, Clauses 56 to 78, Schedules 7 and 8, Clause 79.—(Lord Rooker).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short statement.
	On Tuesday this week, the Offices Committee met to discuss a report presented to it by a small working group, which I chaired, containing proposals for the reform of the House's domestic committee structure. The Offices Committee considered that it would be right to give Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to comment on the proposals before coming to its final decision. Accordingly, an interim Offices Committee report is being published today, incorporating the report of the working group as an annex and inviting Members to make their views known to me in writing. A copy will be sent to every Member of the House and additional copies are now available in the Printed Paper Office. The Offices Committee will meet again in mid-April to discuss the results of the consultation and decide on the way forward. Any proposals emerging from that meeting will, of course, be subject to the agreement of the House as a whole.
	Turning to the Constitution Committee, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Defence (Grant) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This is essentially a Money Bill. As such, it replaces Section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 and maintains the link between civil defence and peacetime emergency planning, by including reference to the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986. The overall effect of the Bill will be to enable Government to return to the practices that existed until a couple of years ago. That was when a loophole was uncovered in the existing legislation and the Government accepted that they would be acting illegally by cash limiting civil defence grant.
	Local authorities are provided with civil defence grant under the Civil Defence Act 1948. That ensures that they have the funds necessary to carry out their civil defence duties—that is, to plan a defensive response to hostile attack. The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 provided for local authorities to use their civil defence resources for peacetime emergencies.
	For many years, the Government distributed grant according to a formula. However, in the summer of 2000, the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority challenged the Government's ability to cash limit this grant. The authority obtained leave to move, but refrained from further action on the understanding that its application for more than its formula allocation would be reconsidered. The matter was settled out of court.
	That left the Government in the unenviable position of being unable to budget and manage civil defence grant properly. Instead of the Government being able to allocate grant according to a formula, we had moved to a demand-led system. So from a grant level of £14 million in 2000-01, costs rose to an estimated £18.6 million this year. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, in another place, has decided to retain grant at this level in view of recent events. However, the pressure is on for costs to increase further if this Bill is not enacted. For instance, the Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society both estimate that emergency planning should be funded to a sum of between £35 million and £70 million—an increase of 88 and 275 per cent respectively. My honourable friend in another place is, rightly, not convinced that that very substantial increase in the level of this particular grant is justified at present.
	The question of funding should, however, be seen in the wider context. The Bill provides for how local authorities in England and Wales will be funded to carry out their emergency planning. It is estimated that approximately £18.6 million will be spent this year. However, that is just a small part of what the Government are spending overall on preparation for emergencies. Large sums are being spent on frontline emergency services: more than £9,000 million for the police, £775 million for the ambulance service and £1,650 million for the fire service. We should also include funds for other work such as flood defences, which has a budget this year of £377 million. Many local authorities also provide funds from their SSA allocation to their individual emergency planning services, which the Local Government Association estimates to be approximately £9.9 million in England this year.
	So this Bill relates only to a small, but not insignificant, part of the Government's total funding for response to disasters and emergencies; namely, the Government's support of emergency planning officers working in local authorities in England and Wales. The Government know that we need to spend money in those important areas. I should like to express our appreciation to all those involved in preparation and response to emergencies for their commitment and hard work in making the UK a safer place for us all to live and work in. They give us the reassurance when faced with disaster that things will not be as bad as they would have been without them.
	Much has happened recently in the world of emergency planning. We have been subject to a series of unexpected events—flooding, fuel distribution crisis, foot and mouth, and 11th September and all its subsequent fallout. The Government had already recognised the importance of preparing a response to such unlooked for incidents by conducting a comprehensive, wide-ranging review of the emergency planning arrangements in England and Wales.
	This review was announced in December 2000, and the public consultation period took place from August to October 2001. The Government are currently considering the implementation of the recommendations of the review. It has been the most comprehensive review of emergency arrangements in this country for years. It has also resulted in much valuable information and feedback which will inform the Government's next steps.
	One of the two proposals in the review, which met with almost total approval, was to introduce new emergency planning legislation. It was widely recognised by respondents that the current legislation, which this Bill amends, is anachronistic and needs to be replaced. However, that is not something that can be done overnight. We need carefully to consider the review findings and how best they can be implemented and legislated for.
	Last autumn, in the aftermath of 11th September, the Government briefly considered rushing through emergency planning legislation, but we rightly concluded that that really required further consideration and reflection in the cold light of day. It is human nature to focus on the last battle fought, as it were, rather than the whole war. We need to ensure that new legislation is broad enough to cope with every eventuality, not just an 11th September.
	The Bill, therefore, is not the Government's last word in emergency planning. It is a Bill that will bridge the gap between the exposure of a financial legal loophole in existing legislation, and the introduction of fully rounded modern emergency planning legislation. Your Lordships might ask why we should bother. The answer is simple: we currently have a situation which is demand led, in which the costs could spiral year on year if the Bill—which will enable costs to be contained within Government-set budgets—is not enacted. It is an essential measure to contain costs in the period between a financial loophole in current legislation being exposed and new, modern emergency planning legislation being introduced. We are not ready to bring in fresh emergency planning legislation; we need to take full stock of the consultation to ensure that we fully consider all of its different aspects. We also need to ensure that we do not just bring in legislation to deal with the last major event: we need wide-ranging, all-embracing legislation that will encompass all eventualities, both anticipated and unanticipated.
	The Bill enables the Government to regain control of funding for emergency planning. It enables us to return to the situation pertaining a couple of years ago, when we had a set budget for emergency planning and allocated the grant according to a formula. That is the essence of this Bill. At present, we are in a situation in which we are unable to cash limit grant. Local authorities can therefore bid for whatever they want, and the Government have to give it to them. We would like to be able to stand here and say that local authorities can have all the money that they would like, but we must live in the real world. We have budgets and we have limited resources. The Government do not have bottomless pockets. Therefore, we must ensure that the Bill is passed through this House.
	The Bill is a short, two-clause measure. The first clause is in two parts. The first part replaces Section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 in so far as it applies to local authorities in England and Wales. This enables grant payments to be made under primary legislation, rather than under secondary legislation, by regulation. The second part of Clause 1 maintains the link between the Civil Defence Act and the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, ensuring that civil defence resources can continue to be used for peacetime emergencies.
	The details are as follows. New Section 3(1) confers on the designated Minister a grant-making function as regards every authority which has civil defence responsibilities. Section 3(2) requires that the Minister determines the aggregate amount of grant each financial year and the amounts of grant for each authority. It also requires the Minister to publish those amounts and the formula and other criteria used to determine them. Section 3(3) allows the Minister to use different criteria in relation to different authorities, and to vary individual determinations.
	New Section 3(A) allows the Minister to pay discretionary grant to any authority with civil defence functions. New Section 3(B) provides for the Minister to determine when grant is paid, allowing, for example, for payment by instalments and for payments not to be restricted to the financial year for which the grant is made. This section further allows for payment of grant to be conditional and provides for the recovery of any over-payment of grant.
	The second part of Clause 1 is a consequential drafting amendment that was introduced by the Government in the House of Commons. It ensures continued linkage between the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, whereby grant paid under this Bill, rather than by regulation, can also be used for peacetime purposes, as well as civil defence.
	The second clause deals with the title, starting date and territorial coverage of this measure. Clause 2(1) sets the title by which the Act shall be known. Clause 2(2) determines the financial year of its introduction—that being 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2003—and its application to subsequent financial years. Clause 2(3) provides for the Act to extend to England and Wales but not to Northern Ireland. Those provisions allow the Government to return to the practices that existed, and with which most authorities were broadly content, before the Merseyside judicial challenge.
	As I have indicated already, the Bill is not the Government's final word on emergency planning. It should be seen in the context of current outdated legislation and of anticipated modern emergency planning legislation, which we in government intend to introduce in Parliament at the earliest opportunity, when parliamentary time and competing priorities permit. We are committed to ensuring that emergency planning is set on a surer foundation and a more certain statutory basis.
	I look forward to the Bill's consideration in your Lordships' House and to further comprehensive emergency planning legislation. In the mean time, we need to ensure that this Bill proceeds to Royal Assent, so that emergency planning can be funded coherently and consistently across England and Wales from the next financial year. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this is of course a money Bill and noble Lords have no power to change its contents. However, I remind noble Lords of the reasons why my party opposed the Bill in another place and voted against it. The first and probably paramount reason is that the proposal to cut back on civil contingencies spending is not appropriate in light of the events of September 11th. My party is opposed to capping and, arguably, to reducing the money available for civil defence.
	The Home Secretary laid great stress on the need to be prepared for all eventualities, terrorist or otherwise. The move to restrict funding for civil defence is incongruous with other areas of current government policy. The Minister said that we are awaiting further information on legislation relating to civil defence, following an extensive review process. Many organisations expressed their desire to see legislation in other key areas pertaining to civil defence, and reform of the civil defence grant cannot be viewed as the highest legislative priority at this time.
	The Bill presented the Opposition in another place with the first opportunity to vote on a matter relating to civil contingencies, following last year's floods. It was felt that at that time the Government failed to provide adequate support to local authorities, which were left to cope with the devastation that was caused by flooding in their areas. This capping of their grant will leave those local authorities all the more vulnerable.
	The Minister referred to the announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, that this year's level will be £18.6 million. That contrasts with the figure of £70 million, which was mentioned by the Minister and which was suggested in a letter from the Emergency Planning Society. Did Mr Leslie's response to a Written Question, which appeared five days after the letter was written, take account of that letter and, in light of that, are the Government minded to increase the level of grant?
	Finally, I refer noble Lords to a survey of local authority emergency planning authorities, which was carried out on 23rd and 24th January of this year by my honourable friend Mr Tim Collins, who is shadow Minister to the Cabinet Office. Of the 31 county emergency planning officers who were surveyed, 29 affirmed that the funding they received from central government was inadequate and did not allow them to provide the service that they should and which the public deserve. Some expressed dissatisfaction in light of the petrol crisis and the foot and mouth epidemic, which some of them had only just survived. Should a further major emergency arise, they simply would not have the capacity to deal with it. They variously described themselves as "grossly under-funded" and in "an abysmal state". They pointed to the continuing cuts with which they have been faced over the past decade, and the incompatibility of those cuts with the ever-increasing expectations that are placed on them. Many of the respondents referred to the startling reductions that they would be forced to introduce. Moreover, 100 per cent of respondents reported that they had received no further funding from central government in the aftermath of the events of September 11th. Seven of them said that no guidance whatever had been received after that event. In only one case was local authority guidance relating to the events of September 11th said to have been received.
	The Minister said that the Government would like to give local government all that is required but there has been a serious lack of communication between central government and local government over this issue. With the transfer of responsibilities from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office, I hope that that will improve.
	We have no power to change this Bill, but I hope that the Government will bear these real concerns in mind when they bring forward further legislation on civil defence, which I gather is in hand.

Lord Roper: My Lords, as has been said, this is a money Bill over which this House has relatively little power. My first reaction to it is to suggest that the main theme of our debate might be that whatever the pressure on the legislative timetable, time is always found for legislation to reassert Treasury control. This piece of legislation will do just that, in view of the loophole that was discovered.
	As has been said, in view of recent events it is clear that the Bill has to be seen as part of the wider picture of our proper planning for civil defence. Apart from the question of further legislation, to which I shall refer in a moment, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will watch very carefully the demands and requirements of civil defence planning, and that if it is necessary to increase the £18 million figure to which he referred appropriate adjustments will be made. We should have a heavy responsibility on us if we had not made appropriate plans and a serious disaster occurred.
	I should be grateful for more information on the Government's plans for further comprehensive legislation. Although that should not be done too quickly, it should be done in reasonable time. What opportunity is there within the Government's legislative programme for us to consider that Bill during this Session? If there is no such opportunity, would it be possible for this House to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny on that Bill? If we did that, it might be possible to proceed with the substantive legislation a good deal more quickly during the next legislative Session.
	As I say, this is a Bill to reassert Treasury control and therefore not one on which this House can comment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Bill.
	I gently remind the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that we have paid close attention to the needs and pressures in the emergency planning field, which have been assessed by local authorities. There has been consultation, and my honourable friend in another place had meetings with the Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society last October. I believe that in late November he spoke directly to the lead councillor responsible for those matters.
	Most of the concerns that noble Lords expressed were not about the Bill—we all agree that this is a money Bill that establishes the proper processes and procedures for the allocation of funds—but about the level of grant. The noble Viscount drew attention to my point about the survey. Views about the level of appropriate spending in any field of government will vary. I am greatly impressed that the noble Viscount thinks that the amount of money should be increased—that is exactly what the Government have done. Over the past year, effectively there will have been a 28 per cent increase compared with the amount of money from central government only two years ago. That is why we were happy to confirm that we would provide funding to the tune of £18.6 million for the next financial year. That is a significant rise in both real and cost terms.
	Prior years had seen the level of grant settle at around £14 million. I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House will recognise that the level of funding is not unreasonable, given, in particular, that we have moved on from the days of the Cold War. Of course, we have had to take some account of the events of 11th September. In that context, I believe that the review of emergency planning started in the previous year has been most useful.
	As I said earlier, I cannot be precise about when new legislation will be brought forward. After all, that legislation will be the fruit of consultation. I consider that to be proper because we want to ensure that we are in tune with the wishes and needs of the emergency planning services and in tune with the pressures as seen at local level.
	We shall consult and shall continue to consult. We want to get the matter right. We recognise that the world has changed since 11th September, and a substantial increase has been made in the level of emergency planning funding. As I said, there will always be disagreement as to what that level should be. But the review is well under way and I trust that we shall have legislation which is fit for the purpose and which will take us forward.
	I hope that those comments have answered the points raised by noble Lords.
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

Read a third time.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, we on these Benches have supported the Question that the Bill do now pass. However, I do not believe that I should let it go without making two points. First, we on these Benches remain concerned that a series of Bills has been produced in relation to football which chips away at civil liberties. The civil liberties anxieties remain and should be the concern of a wider audience. Football cannot rely on legislators to continue to apply sticking plasters to its problems when those sticking plasters involve a reduction in basic civil liberties.
	My second point is that the Bill is one of a series over the past 10 to 15 years which Parliament has had to address to the problems of football. Football is not only a business; it is our national game, our national flag carrier. Those who involve themselves in professional football must take wider responsibilities. During the passage of the Bill, we have seen at all levels directors, managers and professional players conduct themselves to a standard that does not represent a role model for our national game. I do not believe that we should let the Bill pass without putting on record that we expect football to put its own house in order at all levels. It now has a national regulator, and we shall have to see how powerful that regulator is.
	I also hope that the Government keep in place the committee set up under the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. That committee initially considered the problems of football disorder and what could be done about it. The disease in our national game is not cured, and it is certainly not cured by this Bill. I believe that we should give a fair warning to football that it must put its house in order; that the Government will keep behaviour under review; and that we expect football clubs to show wider social responsibility and wider concern in the communities in which they exist. Only in that context should we allow the Bill to pass. Yet again, Parliament has had to come to the aid of football when many of the cures could have come from within football itself.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I speak in the context of the Bill which enjoyed all-party support for the amendments proposed and passed in Committee. I very much take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in relation to the interference with civil liberties. We must be aware of those. But it is also worth remembering that the first test of the Bill came in the game between England and Germany at Munich. I believe that it can be said to have justified itself in that match. I also very much echo the noble Lord's hope that the committee under the chairmanship of the Minister will be kept in being.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, tempting though it is to respond to comments made by noble Lords, I shall simply thank them very much for their support throughout the passage of the Bill. The legislation was successful in dealing with the events to which noble Lords have referred and in the run-up to the match against Holland last night. There were only 12 arrests, which is very welcome.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:

Lord Glentoran: moved the amendment:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005".

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have brought back this amendment on Report. I say at the outset that, unfamiliar as I am nowadays with having a half term, it does not seem to be an appropriate moment at which to hold a major debate or press for a Division in your Lordships' House. Therefore, we—at least, I—shall not divide on the amendment today.
	I still believe that the message I attempted to give to the Government in Committee stands. Many parts of the Bill concern the message that we are sending out to Ireland. Since the Committee stage, many things have happened, as they always do, inside and outside Northern Ireland. But on this occasion it has been in the United States. Mr McGuinness has been speaking in the United States, as have most parties, about where they are going.
	Sinn Fein/IRA is clearly looking for respectability—more respectability as they see it; I see it as some respectability—before the elections in the Irish Republic take place shortly. Mr McGuinness has even admitted publicly—not for the first time—that he was a terrorist. But he is now a respectable citizen; he is a Minister in one of Her Majesty's Governments.
	That is all positive in the light of devolution of power and the continuation of the peace process. But, in my opinion, it is all for nothing if we cannot get law and order back into that little Province. One of the keys to doing so is to bring about decommissioning: to get the weapons and arms of all parties and all terrorists out of the system and out of the country. Seriously urgent measures need to be taken by Her Majesty's Government, and statements need to be made.
	The way I read it, at present the American Government are stronger and harder on the Real IRA and various factions of the IRA—frankly, I do not believe that they are any different to one another—than Her Majesty's Government. I fail to understand why Her Majesty's Government cannot send a much tougher, stronger message stating: "This must happen. We shall make it happen by a certain time and within the power of this Government". I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, those of us in this House who have pressed for confining the renewal of the disqualification Bill to a period of one year have been vindicated, to a great extent, by recent events. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has drawn attention to various visits paid by people from this part of the world to America. I believe that the most significant one was that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr Reid. It has been reported by reputable bodies in the press that Dr Reid held talks with Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI. That is significant. During those talks Dr Reid offered support to the United States for what they termed the next stages of the war against terrorism. That brings us some pleasure.
	Both men would have been aware of the glaring contradictions inherent in Britain's firm attitude to terrorism abroad and British grovelling to a variety of terrorists in a part of the United Kingdom. It is significant that Dr Reid, with his responsibility for Northern Ireland, should be consulting with the head of the FBI on what they call "the next stages". Obviously, they both feel that there is more to come. It is prudent that they should be making determined efforts to have steps in place for when that comes.
	This morning on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hoon, made a statement which will presumably be repeated. That is the way it is nowadays. The Minister makes a statement at eight o'clock in the morning which is later repeated in both Houses of Parliament as an afterthought. However, we have become accustomed to that. Who am I to complain? His statement today dealt with what the Americans call "home base defence measures". Mr Hoon spoke about the possibility of using the Territorial Army and other defence organisations to deal with certain problems within the United Kingdom.
	Another startling statement was made by the Ministry of Defence on the "Today" programme, which was, I suppose, an exclusive, in discussing the possibilities of utilising mercenary bodies to ease the strain and remove overstretch in the Armed Forces. Clearly consideration must be given to the implications of all that for decommissioning or, as I prefer to call it, the disarmament of all forces in possession of weapons.
	Looking further ahead, the whole question of amnesty must be reconsidered in the light of the above announcements. Clearly, an amnesty must be all-embracing. It must extend, for example, to former RUC members, members of other Crown forces and, indeed, to Crown servants, if necessary. The joyful part of that for the British taxpayer must be the implied elimination of all public inquiries, which cost literally millions of pounds. Obviously, self-perpetuating commissions, ombudsmen and ombudswomen will be rendered obsolete by the introduction of what might be called, and were called in my time, "irregular forces". I firmly believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be given time to consider the impact of all the fresh thinking, both on his part, on that of the FBI and now by the Ministry of Defence, speaking from its position of authority. Although we may need to renew this legislation, such renewal should be restricted to one year, for the solid reasons provided by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is not pressing for a Division because we would not be able to support him. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux, that efforts to continue with decommissioning are really not affected by the order. As I said in Committee, the most effective force for good in decommissioning lies with the American administration rather than in London or Dublin. For that reason, we support the Bill unamended.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I support the amendment, for the reasons that I have cited before but shall cite again, mercilessly. The issue here is that a message needs to be sent to the people in the little streets of Northern Ireland. For them, this is a simple issue: are the Government serious about protecting them?
	There was a little decommissioning last October. However, as I remember the Belfast agreement, decommissioning was supposed to cover every aspect of violence, including the guns on the streets. Here we are talking only about what will happen to arms in dumps. Precious little has happened and I suspect that precious little will happen. However, there is another aspect. I come back to an issue which I have raised before in this House. The paramilitaries on all sides—not only the IRA—are becoming more and more overweening in their power to exile people from their own country, depriving them of a basic human right, and nothing is being done.
	The committee which discussed relocation after intimidation received a response from the Government to its modest proposal that there might be some sort of focal point for organising help for such people when they arrive in this country, distressed, lost and frightened, with no money, no work and no house. Some local councils leave them on the streets and do nothing for them. They are treated worse than any asylum seeker. All that is being suggested is a focal point which understands their needs. In that response the Government state:
	"The Government is satisfied that the support necessary for victims of intimidation resettling in Great Britain is in place".
	It is not, or that committee would not have made that recommendation. The Government make a remarkable comment, which I hope does not apply to their thinking on decommissioning generally:
	"Formalising the development of policy and the co-ordination of support activities, as the Committee advocates, would risk sending a signal to paramilitaries that, by working to alleviate the consequences of their actions, the Government was tacitly allowing them to continue with impunity".
	That is the most extraordinarily cynical and disgraceful reason for saying that they will do nothing.
	I return to the fact that people are becoming more and more anxious, beleaguered and unloved. No one seems to care about them. I think that a simple message would be better than nothing. It would show that we are concerned about them and about the continuation of violence. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider, not only in supporting the amendment in due course—I hope that we shall return to it again—but above all in realising that the Belfast agreement interlocked a number of issues. Each one was supposed to depend upon the other. However, it has become completely distorted. We have put in place largely the measures wanted by Sinn Fein. We have not put in place the balancing act which was implied, and which the Prime Minister implied in his speech of 14th April.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I listen regularly to Radio Ulster. Last week I listened every morning, and every morning without fail Radio Ulster reported that another series of knee-cappings had been carried out by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. That happened every single day. It was the same the week before that. No doubt next week it will be the same.
	Paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are using their arms to intimidate individuals, districts and communities and to bend them to their will. The message to them from this legislation is that they will be able to hold on to their arms until 2007. They shall be able to carry on knee-capping and all that goes with it and the Government will not do anything about it.
	I have yet to hear of anyone being brought before the court charged with knee-capping or of a paramilitary being charged with the mutilation of an individual. They know that that will not happen because those people who are mutilated, who have been knee-capped and/or who have been intimidated out of their country—the exiles referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—will not say anything.
	I have just attended a meeting at the other side of this building which concerned a barman in Derry who did not agree with one of the customers who was becoming very obstreperous. The barman ordered him out of the pub. The person ordered out was a member of or had friends in the republican movement. The next day masked men with balaclavas came to the barman's house and ordered him out of the country.
	Does that not show the power that is now being wielded by some of the greatest thugs that have every walked the streets of Northern Ireland? This legislation is saying that they can continue to do that until 2007.
	I asked last week—and I do not want to go into this again in any great detail—whether the Government have made any representations to those in control of paramilitary organisations. Again I do not restrict my remarks to the IRA; the loyalists are also exiling people from their homeland. The loyalists also carry out knee-capping and mutilations every day of the week. What can the Government do because those who are mutilated by the loyalists do not go to the police? The IRA argument, when challenged on this, is: "We have to do this. We are acting as policemen because there is not an acceptable police force in Northern Ireland". That is what they say. So they are asking permission to continue with these mutilations for another five years on the grounds that they are the only acceptable police force in those communities in Northern Ireland.
	I said to the Minister last week: "By the way, standing as I do in this House, having the experience which I have had in Northern Ireland, and having had my own home burned out in Northern Ireland by the so-called republican paramilitaries, I could quite easily sit here and say nothing. I could stay away from these debates because when I do take part in them I get a lot of anonymous threatening letters from paramilitary organisations". It is mostly from the republicans because I have questioned their activities in this House. "But I believe that when coming to this House and taking the Oath of Allegiance at the Dispatch Box I gave an oath that I would talk on all the issues that are relevant to the security of the United Kingdom". I am doing so now because Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom.
	Many of Northern Ireland's citizens are being brutally intimidated by paramilitary organisations—Mafia organisations. This legislation, as it stands, is saying to them that they can continue to do this until 2007. On the other hand, we know—and I refer to it again at the risk of repeating myself—that there will be an amnesty granted to republican prisoners who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland. The Government are going to grant them an amnesty so that they can come back to Northern Ireland. I was speaking to a policeman last week in Belfast. He told me that one of those who will gain from this amnesty he knew for a fact had killed three of his RUC colleagues. Just imagine how difficult it will be for that policeman to see the murderer of his colleagues granted an amnesty by the British Government because of some deal that they are doing with paramilitary organisations.
	I have suggested that if we are to get anything out of this—and I do not believe that we are—the Government should say to the paramilitary organisations: "Before we let your people come back into Northern Ireland from the Republic, we insist that all those who have been exiled by paramilitary organisations are allowed to come back home and live in Northern Ireland". At least we should get something in return.
	I refer again to the choreography. We were told that the Government make one move and Sinn Fein or the IRA or the loyalists make a move in the other direction. They have not. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in effect says, "We realise that we cannot defeat the Government because they will get their way in the legislation, but at least restrict the activities of the paramilitary organisations to one year rather than to five years". I do not believe that that is an outlandish request to make. I appeal to the Government to take on board what has been said by noble Lords in this House about the existing situation in Northern Ireland where fear and intimidation exists to a large extent throughout communities and to tell those who they must be negotiating with in relation to this legislation that they will have to give something back in return.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I intervened in Committee after the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he told the House that the guns were silent. I cited the paramilitaries' actions against the rest of the community about which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just been speaking. I emphasise that it is either side of the community; it is not the community simply on one side. I quoted data from the evidence section of the report by the Select Committee in another place in the last Parliament on the paramilitaries sending their fellow citizens into exile. That data reflected the increase in shootings after the second ceasefire by comparison with a fairly modest number of shootings after the first.
	By unfortunate irony, the other place is debating that report in Westminster Hall at 2.30 this afternoon, once this debate is likely to have been concluded. The Government did not reply to that report published in May of last year until December. The Minister's reply to the debate this afternoon is therefore the first real opportunity for the Government to be cross-examined on their position on the issue and on the report.
	The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will recall that my noble friend Lady Park's debate on this subject in this House coincided with the news of the decommissioning by the IRA. Therefore, he did not have excessive time on that occasion to respond to the specific points made by my noble friend. I make no criticism of that. The coincidence was one which in part determined the debate.
	The Times on 8th February brought the figures up-to-date in terms of last year in an article which may have reflected the case mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. In that article the RUC had reported that there were 331 punishment beatings and shootings in Northern Ireland last year, which is the highest figure in 30 years of conflict. The Times also cited statistics brought forward by Base Two, the body that underlies NIACRO, which also gave evidence as regards the report that I have alluded to. That indicated that there were 906 threats last year by paramilitaries to their fellow citizens in the community. I acknowledge immediately that the first 300 of those were by republicans and at least 500 were by loyalists. I am not suggesting in any way that it is all on one side of the community. However, those 906 threats included 50 death threats and 650 of what are perhaps not wholly felicitously referred to as "exile orders".
	I understood the response of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to my noble friend's amendment in Committee, which was of a similar nature to the one he is moving today. It meant that, beyond peradventure, the letter of the law in terms of what the noble and learned Lord said is on the side of the Government. But there are occasions when the spirit of the law requires reinforcement in order to send a message from Parliament in instances of this sort. Therefore I continue unreservedly to support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course the level of paramilitary violence, kneecappings and so on is quite unacceptable. Of course decommissioning must happen; but frankly I am not persuaded that the difference between 2005 and 2007 will make the paramilitaries say, "Ho, Ho! Parliament is more determined than we thought it was". I do not believe that the difference between the two is the real issue, in terms of whether the paramilitaries will respond or not.
	In any case, as I understand it, the provisions have to be renewed a year at a time so that there is still the possibility—the inevitability—that Parliament will from year to year pronounce on the continuation of these measures. Even if the IRA were to decommission today we would still need this legislation on the statute book until 2007, I believe, because both the Real IRA and some of the loyalist organisations have not been disposed even to consider decommissioning up to now.
	At least from the IRA we have had one major act of decommissioning—not a minor one—which I believe to be of enormous significance. I hope that I may, just for the record, disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. She suggested, as she does every time she speaks, that all the concessions are one-way and that Sinn Fein/IRA have made no concessions at all. I have no truck with violence from anyone, but perhaps I might remind her that Sinn Fein are members of a devolved parliamentary institution within the United Kingdom, that two of them are Ministers and that they have accepted the principle of consent that there will be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the will of the majority of its people.
	That is an enormous concession by them, given their previous position. I think that it should be remembered, before we believe that the Government are simply making concessions to one side and not to the other. Of course decommissioning has to happen but I believe that it will happen through argument, pressure and persuasion, not by means of a technicality on our statute book.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that everyone who has spoken is motivated by a genuine desire for improvement in Northern Ireland, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as always. He took the view, which I entirely respect, that a Thursday morning with a small House is not the moment to test the opinion of the House. He was scrupulous in discussing this with me before we began.
	I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for what he said about Dr Reid. On his visit to the United States he made the important point that if there is to be financial and other assistance from the United States community it ought to go evenhandedly also to the Protestant sections of the Northern Ireland population. It seems to me—and I do not say this because I am a Member of the same Government—that he is showing himself, as every week passes, to be a very considerable Secretary of State indeed.
	I am grateful for the scrupulous support of the Liberal Democrats, as always in the context of Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has referred on a number of occasions to those who are sent away from their homes. She never exaggerates the problem and, without commitment, I shall look again in detail at what she said.
	The noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Brooke, have recent facts behind them. The citation given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right: 331 people were the victims of paramilitary shootings and assaults in 2001; 17 persons were murdered. There were 344 bombings and 350 shootings. Of course it is not right to say that the authorities are powerless. Later this morning I shall ask your Lordships to extend the additional powers in the context of Northern Ireland which are required for a further year. In the context of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Fitt, 635 people were arrested in 2001 either for terrorist activity or serious public disorder offences. I do not think that it is right for me not to include those figures in a tribute to the continuing work of the police service in Northern Ireland.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is quite right. What this Bill does is to extend what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called, attractively and accurately, the possessory immunity provisions for one year. It extends the provisions for one year, and there is the possibility—but no more—of further extensions, subject to the annual positive approval of this House. Therefore the difference between us is whether or not a possible further series of extensions should run for two years or for five years. For the reasons already set out by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Dubs, I think that five years is appropriate.
	That does not mean that there is no obligation on people to surrender arms before that. Indeed, if anyone is arrested in possession of arms in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom, and they are not able to bring themselves within this possessory immunity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called it, they are committing criminal offences and are liable to be charged, are capable of being charged, and are charged with serious offences.
	I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, does not wish to put the matter to the vote on this occasion although he may well revert to that when we meet on Third Reading. I believe that we are right to set this five-year period. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that was the letter of the law on the first scheme and it is suitable—though perhaps regrettable—as an aspect of this further extension.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have joined in this debate again. I believe that it is right for us to continue to pressurise Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to attain decommissioning, and there are different ways of doing that. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his reasoned and careful response, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Contracting Out (Functions in relation to Apsley House) Order 2002

Baroness Blackstone: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we are here to debate whether the functions now vested in the Secretary of State under certain sections of the 1947 Wellington Museum Act may be exercised on her behalf. I am satisfied that the draft order now before your Lordships is compatible with convention rights.
	There are two functions which under these proposals would be contracted out. The first concerns the maintenance and use of part of Apsley House as a museum, commemorating the first Duke of Wellington and his time. The museum may be used for government entertainment or, with the consent of the Duke, for other public purposes. The second is about the maintenance of the fabric of the house.
	The responsibility for the running of the museum has been carried out since 1947 by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Responsibility for the fabric has rested with the DCMS and its predecessors. Your Lordships may appreciate being reminded of the historical background to these proposals. Apsley House was given to the Government by the seventh Duke of Wellington, the father of the current Duke, in 1947. Under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act, the Duke and his family retain rights to live in the private apartments of the house and the Duke retains rights to give his consent to events held in the public rooms. We do not propose that any of those rights held by the family should be changed by the current proposals, but we have reached the conclusion that it no longer makes practical sense to have separate management arrangements for such functions. We have decided that the time has come for unification.
	Over the years, the department and its predecessors have been competent stewards of the historic fabric. There has been considerable government investment to ensure that this Grade I listed building remains in good shape. In addition to the day-to-day maintenance, a considerable programme of capital work has been funded. Last year more than £200,000 was spent in a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof. My department has also programmed over £700,000 for future work to the Waterloo and central roofs. Any new body will be funded to continue those works.
	Apsley House is an important part of the landmark buildings at Hyde Park Corner and fully complements the now refurbished Wellington Arch directly opposite. But Apsley House is the last historic property for which we retain responsibility. The decision was taken as part of the far-reaching comprehensive spending review in 1998 to withdraw from other responsibilities of that kind, such as Marble Arch and Trafalgar Square. It is inefficient to retain specialist contractors for just one property.
	Over the years the V & A has done an excellent job. Under its management the Wellington Museum won the Small Attraction of the Year award in 2001. The total number of visitors increased by 37 per cent between 1998-99 and 2000-01 to around 60,000 people. The director of the V & A has said that running an historic house is not a priority for the V & A at present. A change in management of the Wellington Museum, therefore, provides an opportunity for a new focus and direction.
	One particularly noteworthy innovation from the V & A that we intend should remain is the emphasis on education. The education programme at the Wellington Museum ranged from formal learning for children and higher and further education students to informal programmes for children, adults and families. Especially popular are the workshops for schoolchildren that have been developed to be uniquely suited to Apsley House and the Wellington Museum, such as the Downstairs Diary, a living history programme of servant life in the Victorian age.
	The informal programme includes events such as specialist talks, relating directly to the Duke of Wellington, his life, his times, his magnificent collection, story-telling and art activities for children, and family learning weekends organised in conjunction with the Westminster adult education service, which have attracted an ethnically diverse group of families from north Westminster. We would expect any new management to build on that and that that will be a condition of any contract.
	We shall also require the new management to retain the principle of free admission to the museum for children. However, the proposal is that the Wellington Museum should not be classified as a national museum under the new arrangement. Therefore, we shall not require the full range of free access policies to apply. The new operator must have scope to decide on the charging policy if that makes overall operational and business sense. That has been the case in other operations where the Government have put in an independent operator in charge of historic properties; for example, at Somerset House and at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich.
	Overall, we would expect the existing visitor experience at least to be maintained, and if possible, enhanced. One possibility is that the new management could establish a relationship with the Wellesley family that would allow more artefacts associated with the life of the first Duke to be exhibited. At present, there is much material at Stratfield Saye in Hampshire that could find a much wider audience if it were made available in London. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the death of the first Duke, that is an exciting prospect.
	We see considerable advantage in market-testing ideas for unified management of the building and the museum. The contracting out order now before your Lordships provides us with an opportunity to gauge just what that interest may be. Such interest may come from established heritage operations or from other quarters. We would expect to let a contract in the first instance for five years. The successful bidder would be funded by the department, initially at existing levels of investment, but we expect that a new operator will be able to generate other sources of support, perhaps through sponsorship and increased levels of corporate and other events in the museum.
	On all fronts, we believe that the time is right for change. Of course, change is unsettling for many of those directly involved. It is fundamental to our thinking that the position of existing staff in the Wellington Museum should be protected, whatever new management arrangements are put in place. Discussions have already begun between the department and the V & A. If your Lordships agree the proposal now before the House, we shall consult the staff and the unions together with potential bidders. Where staff transfer to the new management we shall follow the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector so that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be fully protected.
	We see real gains all round from the proposal now before the House. The V & A will be relieved of a responsibility that no longer fits with its primary business purpose. The department will relinquish its direct responsibility. The visitor will suffer no reduction and may indeed stand to gain from a richer experience. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the making of the order, but I have some questions for the Minister. The order is so unspecific as to the implications of what will happen when it is passed, that although the Minister has given the House some information, I feel that it is important to ask the Government to put on the record details where it is reasonable to do so. As ever, my questions are thoroughly reasonable! They cover the following four issues: funding; the process of transfer to a new organisation; accountability post transfer; and access and exhibits.
	On funding, I raise two matters: repairs and maintenance. The Minister has referred to the fact that last year more than £200,000 was spent on a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof and that the DCMS has programmed more than £700,000 for future works to the Waterloo and central roofs. She has given an assurance to the House that the Government will fund any new body to continue those works that have already been identified. That is most welcome.
	What will happen if there is an over-run in the cost of those projected improvements? If the costs go up unexpectedly, who will bear the increase in those costs? If there is a dispute as to the cause of the over-run in the budget, who will act as the arbiter? In other words, who will pay?
	On maintenance, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the current annual cost of day-to-day maintenance that she mentioned? She said that the Government will fund the successful bidder initially at existing levels of investment. How long does she mean by "initially"? Will that be for one year only, or will the period be longer than that? Will the funding that is transferred to the new managing body be deducted directly from the V & A budget?
	I note that the Minister referred to the TUPE practice. I welcome her remarks in that regard. That practice will mean that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be protected. I want to ask a question about pensions which I appreciate is technical. However, I was able to give the Minister somewhat limited advance notice this morning of these questions. Can she tell the House what the position will be with regard to pensions? I refer to those that are currently claimed by past employees of the museum—those who have already retired—and those that will be claimed in the future when existing employees retire once they have transferred to the new organisation? Will the new body be responsible for funding those pensions, or will they be paid by government?
	I pass to the second issue, which comes under the heading of process of transfer. The Minister referred to putting out the transfer to bidders. We hope, as the Government say, that there will be wide-ranging interest. How long does the Minister expect the market-testing process to take? We all wish the handover to be as painless as possible. Do the Government have a target date for the handover to the new managing body?
	Last December, I tabled a Written Question on the order. In her Answer, the Minister said that the Government expected that expressions of interest would be sought through an advertisement and that tenders would then be invited. On 6th February, when the order was considered in another place, Dr Howells, the Minister there, seemed to think that a number of bidders were already in the wings, waiting to take centre stage. Is that the case? Have the Government to date received any informal indications of any person or organisation who may be prepared to enter the bidding process? If so, can the Minister say who they are? What plans have the Government made to judge which tender should be accepted, if there is more than one, and if there is only one, whether it is acceptable? What principles will guide their decision?
	Does the Minister agree that the people who may best understand the collection—including the parts that have not yet been exhibited—include members of the family? Will the family be involved in the running of the organisation that will take over the management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum?
	I turn to the issue of accountability after the handover to the new organisation. What kind of accountability will follow that transfer? To whom will the managing body be accountable and how will that accountability be exercised? The Minister said that the contract is expected to last for five years in the first instance. I hope that this would never happen, but if the Government were by any stretch of the imagination to be dissatisfied with the management of the museum and Apsley House, could that contract be terminated before the end of five years, or is there any other practical step that the Government could take if they felt that the arrangement was simply not working?
	Finally, I turn to the issue of access and exhibits. The matters that I have covered so far are of importance to public finance and accountability, but so far as the general public are concerned, the real test of success of the change to be brought about under the order is simple: when they visit the museum, they want an even better experience than they currently have. I recently visited Apsley House as a paying member of the public and thoroughly enjoyed my visit. I can well understand why it won the London Tourist Board's attraction of the year award last year.
	I welcome the Minister's remark about the continuation of the valuable education programme—that it should be a condition of the contract of the new managing body to build on that experience. I also welcome her pragmatic comments about free access. I appreciate her making clear that we should leave those who know best—in this case, the new operators—to get on with making commonsense decisions about where free access should be available and where charging might be appropriate. I am delighted that the noble Baroness was able to build on the remarks about access and exhibits made by the Minister in another place. In so doing, she has made it easier for the House to agree to the order.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I represented the then Department of National Heritage at the Dispatch Box, I took advantage of my position to pay a thorough visit to Apsley House, which I absolutely loved, especially the pictures. I had no idea that through sheer good fortune it had amassed such a fine collection. I am sorry that the Victoria and Albert Museum, with its great expertise, is giving up responsibility, but I suppose that I understand the reason why.
	The noble Baroness mentioned that items may be brought from Strafield Saye to Apsley House. I have no idea to whom those items belong. Do they belong to the family or to the general public? I think that there are more than enough things to see in Apsley House as it stands. It would be a pity if it were cluttered, rather than giving one a little lebensraum as one goes round. I should like to know about the items from Strafield Saye, which is also well worth a visit.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister's presentation was interesting and encouraging. I have great confidence following it and, on behalf of these Benches, I am sure that in implementing the order the Government will be sensitive and appropriate to the historical importance of Apsley House and its importance as a tourist site, among other things.
	In my youth—I think I was only 22—I worked for a genealogical publication and had to research the Wellesley family. I got in touch with the seventh Duke, who had presented Apsley House in 1947. He kindly invited me to lunch, which was a daunting experience for a 22 year-old. I have never been invited to any meal by a Duke since. Young people nowadays may be rather surprised that one was daunted by such an experience, but in those days a Duke was really something. The seventh Duke was certainly really something. He was an eminent diplomat and had held various offices, as well as being in charge of surveying the Royal works of art—the King's works of art—and had also been a distinguished trustee of the National Gallery.
	I may say that the luncheon went extremely well: my genealogical points were answered satisfactorily and he had with him his distinguished librarian. There was an interesting library in Apsley House, as well as some interesting pictures of Spanish origin and other items. I feel rather remiss in not having visited since. I was encouraged by what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said. At the time, at 22, I had rather too much of the iron Duke, because I was educated—if that is not too strong a word for it—at a school founded in memory of the royal Duke. I see sitting in his place the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who was educated properly at the same institution.
	I was so impressed and heartened by that visit to Apsley House that I remember thinking that it could become a really great attraction for students and tourists alike, as indeed it has. One remarkable characteristic of No. 1 London, as it is called—so it was not difficult for me to find when I went to lunch with the Duke—is that it gathers together a number of interesting items related to the first Duke of Wellington and his campaigns. In particular, I recall the bivouac that he used at the battle of Waterloo and various other pieces of weaponry, hats and insignia, all of which added up to, to use the modern expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a good visitor experience. That is not an expression I use, although I do talk about my educational experience, which is somewhat different. It is a remarkable place.
	I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that contact with the family needs to be maintained. The seventh Duke gave the house to the nation. The apartments at the top of the building were arranged so that the family could stay there, with arrangements for entertaining and so on. Those have all worked well.
	We must count this building as one of the great houses of England. Those great houses are always better presented if the family remains associated with them, but that is not always possible. I give this note of warning, and I am sure that it will not occur in the arrangements that the Government will make. However, when bodies are appointed to look after such houses one must ensure that the personalities involved will work with the family.
	The family still maintains a strong interest in Apsley House. A number of items in Stratfield Saye could well be placed in Apsley House. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. It would be a mistake to clutter the house. The relationship between the family and whoever is responsible for the building should be close, sensitive and happy. In that way, one increases its attraction.
	I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks about the educational aspect. It is important that young people should have the opportunity to be educated about one of the great figures of our history who has been somewhat ignored, as have most of our historical figures. We are going through a phase where history is not fashionable. Sadly, nowadays children will not know much about the Duke of Wellington. If they attend Wellington College, they will do so because they will see the pineapples which the Duke liked and history is rammed down the throat. However, it is no longer a quasi-military establishment, which is a relief.
	The Victoria and Albert Museum has done a good job over the years. We understand why it does not find it possible to continue to run the museum aspect of the house. We have great confidence in the new director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Mark Jones. He has a large task on his hands. There are important developments for that great museum. He wants to keep his eye on the ball. I understand that Apsley House would be a distraction. It is the time for this change to take place.
	We welcome this sensible order. When the Minister has answered the searching questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I shall be even further assured that it is a sensible measure which will lead to this attraction being increasingly important and a centre of education.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, first, having recently visited the museum I found it an educational experience. But more than that, it was an exciting artistic experience because the collections are magnificent. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the importance which will continue to be attached to the educational aspects of what the museum is doing. They are immensely important. I am glad that she spelt out so fully what is being done.
	Secondly, I refer to access. When I first went to the museum I was rather terrified at the thought of approaching it. One sees the traffic hurtling along that very wide road and there is no obvious indication that it is perfectly safe to get there. There is very little advertising of the fact that one can cross the road underground in total safety from three directions. Can the Minister ensure that that situation is improved? Potential visitors should be more numerous although the situation is developing well, as the noble Baroness indicated when she cited the figures of attendance. Can the noble Baroness ensure that that somewhat frightening deterrent is changed so that people realise that it is totally safe to go to the museum?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the order from all sides of the House. I shall do my best to answer the questions put in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. However, they are rather detailed and if I cannot do so, I shall obtain the answers and write to her.
	The noble Baroness asked when the hand-over will take place. We hope that it will be some time in the late autumn of this year. I think that it will take that amount of time for the process to be gone through properly. Noble Lords would want that to be done properly.
	She asked about repairs and maintenance and what would happen if there were an overrun. In any contract, it is important to ensure that the bidder pays for any overruns. That will apply with regard to capital contracts at Apsley House as it would anywhere else.
	The noble Baroness asked about the pension position after the transfer takes place of staff who currently work there. I cannot add a great deal to what I said in my opening remarks. We shall act in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on the transfer of staff. We shall ensure that the rights of existing staff are protected.
	She asked about accountability. The contract will be managed and overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that there will be no problems. However, if there were to be a problem about the contract being met, the DCMS could terminate the contract. I hope that that is a clear response.
	The noble Baroness asked about the process of market testing; and how many organisations might bid for the contract. I have no idea. I do not know how many people are likely to do so. We know that one body is interested. But it is quite likely that there may be others.
	The noble Baroness asked what initial funding meant. It means five years and then it would be right to have a review. As I hope I made clear, the capital works will continue to be funded by the DCMS. I do not anticipate any problems about that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked about objects at Stratfield Saye. They belong to the family, but I know that the family is willing to loan them to the museum. It is intended to make the museum more like the home of the Duke of Wellington than simply a collection of exhibits. I accept the need to ensure that there is no cluttering up. I am sure that that can be avoided. I agree with the noble Baroness about the wonderful quality of the collections at Apsley House, especially the paintings. But I have also seen some wonderful objects at Stratfield Saye. Far more people would be able to see them in London so it is a helpful and generous offer from the family that more objects should be shown in London.
	I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has not had any further invitations from dukes. Perhaps some will now be forthcoming. I am grateful for his welcome for what the Government are proposing, particularly what he said about education. I do not agree that history is not fashionable; it is very fashionable. Large numbers of children and young people are interested in history, and they ought to be interested in the first duke and his many exploits, as a general and as a politician.
	The noble Viscount is, of course, right in what he says about the V&A having many other considerations that it wants to fulfil, to ensure that the enormous success of the British galleries continues and that the work that goes on in the V&A and in the other museums for which they are responsible continues to prosper and improve.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about access to Apsley House. There are underpasses at Hyde Park Corner, so one can go underneath the road, rather than risk one's life trying to cross the road. I accept that the traffic there is somewhat intimidating, but I doubt whether my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or Westminster City Council can, in fact, hugely reduce the flow of traffic.
	I also accept what the noble Lord said about the need for good advertising and marketing of one of London's great gems. I am sure that whoever takes on responsibility in the new trust will be aware of that.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to clarify a point about which I have obviously misled the Minister. I am not suggesting that any alteration should be made to the traffic. I am suggesting that it should be made clear to the public that it is perfectly safe to get to the museum because of the underground access from several directions.
	I find it surprising that there is so little advertising in the underground access or visible above ground in the approaches to it. Perhaps, there could be some banners or something like that, but there is nothing to show that one can get there safely; one finds out by chance.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am happy to see whether we can make some improvement. Perhaps some signs could be put up making it clear that one can get across from the Underground at the other side of the road through the underpass, without risking life and limb.
	I am grateful for the support for the order. I hope that we can now get on with seeking tenders. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked what criteria would be used. They are fairly obvious: the management and business plan must be in order, the education work must continue, and the great asset of Apsley House and its contents must be properly preserved and properly shown to—we hope—an ever-larger public.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002

Lord Filkin: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002. I hope that, despite its technical nature, it will not be necessary to take up too much of the House's time in dealing with it.
	The order introduces new requirements to limit noise from light helicopters and microlights and emissions of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from subsonic jets. It also consolidates existing requirements to limit noise from new supersonic aircraft types and emissions of smoke and unburned hydrocarbons from jet aircraft and to prevent intentional fuel venting during normal operations. The order does not affect noise standards from subsonic jet aircraft or from propeller-driven aircraft: those are covered by the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.
	The problem of aircraft noise is not confined just to jet aircraft at major airports such as Heathrow. Noise from aircraft such as helicopters and microlights using local airfields can also cause discomfort and misery for local residents, especially in the summer months. It is important that that nuisance be minimised. That can be achieved, at least in part, by ensuring that effective standards are set to limit noise from such aircraft. That is what the order does.
	Gaseous emissions from aircraft can affect local air quality and contribute to climate change. Air traffic increases are likely to exacerbate those effects. It therefore makes sense to limit the pollutants from aviation. The UK's Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 includes emissions from domestic aviation. The standards in the order will help us to meet that target and the EU limit value for oxides of nitrogen that will be mandatory in 2010.
	All the new requirements in the order are recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, with the exception of the new noise limitation standards for microlights, an aircraft type for which there are no internationally agreed standards. My department and the Department of Trade and Industry played a full part in helping to ensure that the recommendations were technically feasible and economically reasonable, as well as environmentally beneficial. In the case of microlight noise, there are national standards in the UK and some European countries. The order tightens existing UK standards and brings them closer into line with those in Europe.
	The requirements of the order have been the subject of consultation with representatives of industry and users to ensure that they will not impose an unjustifiable or unreasonable burden on those affected and that aircraft produced in the UK will be able fully to meet them if they do not already do so. Aircraft manufactured and operated to ICAO standards can be sold and operated freely in most—if not all—of the 187 member countries of ICAO. I am confident that the order will be neither burdensome nor, I hope, controversial. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, on these Benches, we support the order and agree with the Minister that it should not be controversial.
	I welcome the Minister's remarks about microlights. It is always important to balance the development of the sport and leisure industry, making sure that there is no undue regulation, with the importance of ensuring that local residents are not unduly adversely affected by the development of a leisure facility. The provisions of the order serve the interests of microlight users and local residents well.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we also support the order, although one would need a degree as a senior wrangler to qualify the formula that is set out in the papers. I take the noble Lord's assurance that it is right.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, I welcome the order. I suppose that it is always incumbent on me to declare my interest whenever aviation matters arise.
	It is important that environmental considerations be fully taken into account when we consider the advance of British aviation. The difficulties that have been met so far have been attributed to two factors: there was something of a recession before 11th September, and it has been exacerbated by the events of that day. I do not think, however, that we should take our eye off the ball as far as concerns the order. It is tremendously important that people who live around our major airports know that the Government take environmental issues seriously. I believe that this order demonstrates that fact.
	As a former aviation Minister and Transport Commissioner, perhaps I may point out that, in my view, the CAA carries out a superlative job. The more we can pay tribute to that organisation the better. The measure put before us today by the Government is really of tremendous importance. I should like to raise a few queries about Article 15(1), which says:
	"Within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by the CAA or an authorised person",
	certain events should take place as regards the commander of an aircraft. I do not ask my noble friend the Minister to be wholly specific on the matter, but can he say what he has in mind by the words "a reasonable time"? Further, can he say who such an "authorised person" would be? Presumably, the CAA does not have jurisdiction over all airports and it is possible that that situation is covered by the mention of an "authorised person". I do not know the answer, but I believe my noble friend has that information. I call upon him to substantiate the definition before the House.
	Leaving those points aside, I believe that the order before the House today is a measure that deserves wholehearted support.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this order has received from all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is quite right: we have to strike a balance between regulation to protect the public and the interests of the industry. I believe that that has been achieved on the microlight standards. We are discussing an important growth industry for Britain.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, commented that one needed "senior wrangler" status, which, I admit, I do not possess, to understand the formula. Indeed, as is often the case, it is probably true to say that you also need that when reading other parts of the order. Nevertheless, I welcome the noble Lord's backing for the measure.
	The House recognises the depth of experience of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, derived from his time as a former aviation Minister and as a transport commissioner in Europe. He affirmed the importance of good environmental standards—a view that is broadly shared—and asked some interesting, but difficult, questions about Article 15. He asked, first, what was the "reasonable time" within which the commander of an aircraft should produce to the CAA a noise certificate to demonstrate that he was in compliance with the terms of the order. I should tell the House that it will vary with the circumstances. If the aircraft were stationed at its home base, it would have to be a shorter period of time. However, if, for example, it were a foreign aircraft originating in another country, one would expect there to be a longer time limit. The aim is simply to clarify the state of the aircraft as quickly as is reasonably practicable, or, put another way, "in a reasonable time"; that is, the time that a reasonable person or organisation would take to supply the document, which, perhaps, takes it slightly circularly.
	With regard to my noble friend's second point regarding who an "authorised person" would be, this is defined in Article 3 of the order as,
	"any constable and any person authorised by the CAA".
	Again, one finds oneself in circles. When I asked a civil servant who might be so authorised by the CAA, he replied "Me". That seemed to me to be a fairly good example of what one would expect; in other words, a relevant official for such purposes.
	This order will strengthen environmental protection from aviation. It will help keep the UK abreast of the latest ICAO technical recommendations on aircraft noise and emissions. It will also help UK aircraft and engine manufacturers to sell overseas, as well as rationalising our domestic regulation for limiting the environmental impact of aviation.
	Much work has been carried out to minimise, as far as possible, the environmental impact of aviation. As a government, we believe that more needs to be done; and much work to that end is in train, as part of the promised White Paper on developing our civil aviation policy that we intend to publish by the end of this year. The order is a modest but worthwhile contribution to the continuing effort to improve aviation in the meantime. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Part VII of the Act is extremely important. I shall summarise it briefly in an effort to assist the House. The powers in Part VII relate to the operation of the Diplock courts. They include powers for the Armed Forces; powers for the Secretary of State to requisition land for special purposes; and powers that, at present—I emphasise "at present"—the police in Northern Ireland need over and above the ordinary criminal law.
	If the order is agreed, its effect would be to renew the Part VII powers for a further 12 months only with effect from the 19th February 2002 and finishing at midnight on 18th February 2003. In coming to the conclusion that such powers are needed, we have, as your Lordships would expect—and, indeed, demand—had recourse to security advice. We have also paid very careful attention to the recent report published by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am most grateful to him for the expedition with which he was able to report after his relatively recent appointment. The noble Lord came to the conclusion, which I entirely endorse, that the Part VII powers are required for the further 12 months.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, specifically asked for early consideration to be given to the repeal of Section 76 of the Act, which relates to the admissibility of confession evidence in Diplock court cases. The Secretary of State has already indicated his intention to launch a consultation exercise focused on the possible repeal of this section. That exercise will begin very shortly—by which I mean a matter of days, not months.
	There is also the question of bail to consider. I shall be happy to deal with any particular questions that noble Lords may wish to raise. However, I respectfully commend the House to the view that the Part VII powers are necessary for this 12-month period. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise simply to confirm that noble Lords on these Benches support the making of the order. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for referring to Section 76 and for confirming that we are talking about a very short space of time before such issues are addressed by the Government.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his characteristically excellent exposition of the purpose behind the order, and for acknowledging the report undertaken by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. Noble Lords on these Benches would also like to welcome the report and to pay tribute to its author for compiling such a thorough, yet clear and accessible, report.
	I have a few points to raise with the noble and learned Lord. First, my noble friend Lord Carlile concluded that the post of an independent reviewer should be given wider publicity within Northern Ireland, so that the public can more generally understand what his role involves.
	In Section 5, referring to the Diplock courts, the Carlile report reached a similar conclusion; that is, that the system is working adequately, but that my noble friend will continue to make an independent assessment of the debate surrounding the Diplock courts. We believe that that is very necessary. It is unfortunate that provision must be made to have Diplock courts, although we accept that they need to be continued. However, that continuation should be kept under constant scrutiny.
	With regard to Section 6 of the report, discussing admissions and trials on indictment, my noble friend makes the point that:
	"No evidence of substance was placed before me to justify the continuation of non-PACE standards. In my view there is an overwhelming case for applying the PACE standard uniformly. I recommend that Her Majesty's Government should give early consideration to the repeal of Section 76 . . . and that PACE standards should be applied to confession evidence in all cases".
	It was gratifying to hear from the Minister that the Government are giving urgent consideration to that point.
	Finally, Section 14, relating to Section 103 of the Act, deals with terrorist information. Here we should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to extending the effects of the section to include part-time prison officers and part-time social workers and nurses employed by the Prison Service, and other comparable categories. Part-timers are just as likely to be at risk as full-time employees.
	We regret the necessity of having to continue this order for yet another year and we hope that, as things improve, it will lapse sooner rather than later. In the mean time, we support its extension.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak because this morning I received a letter from Professor Brice Dickson, the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, making on behalf of the commission a number of criticisms of the report of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew.
	I do not endorse these criticisms because, frankly, I am in no position to do so. I cannot comment on them one way or the other because I do not have the background knowledge, but they have been raised by an important public body which has responsibilities to advise in this field. I think it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could reply to the criticisms that have been made. However, I understand that the noble and learned Lord has not himself received a copy of this letter. Unfortunately it has arrived very late in the day. As I have said, it reached me only this morning and was posted yesterday, but I did show a copy of it to the noble and learned Lord's civil servants.
	The particular points made by the commission are as follows. First, it is unhappy with the further continuation of the Diplock courts. Secondly, it is unhappy with the continuance of the restrictions on bail imposed by Section 67 of the Act. Thirdly, it is unhappy with the continuance of the police power of arrest under Section 82 of the Act. Various other comments have been made, but those points go to the report rather than being relevant to the order. However, I think that I should mention that the commission has said that its effectiveness is jeopardised by the reluctance of some government agencies to co-operate fully with its inquiries.
	Having raised these points, as I think it is proper to do, I wait with interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say in reply.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for those responses. Perhaps I may deal first with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. It is very important, for reasons of substance rather than presentation, that one has an independent reviewer where there is any deviation, as it were, from the normal criminal law range of sanctions in place in the rest of the United Kingdom. I say with respect that I believe that, as it was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile's point was extremely well made. A good deal of felicity needs to be given, first, because his inquiries ought to be transparent and, secondly, because rightly or wrongly certain people may feel aggrieved whose experiences ought to be known to the reviewer. In so far as the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, needs any support, then I willingly give it on behalf of the Government; that is, that there should be the widest publicity given to him in exercising his reports.
	Secondly, I turn to the question of the Diplock courts. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the basis of a letter he has received from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite uncompromising in his conclusion. I am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and I know practitioners over there of all different backgrounds and political views. They have always been unanimous in agreeing with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Diplock courts provide courts of a very high quality indeed. They have the unusual requirement that the tribunal which finds guilt or fails to find guilt actually has to give reasons. That is extremely useful for someone who then wishes to launch a reasoned appeal. That is something that juries in the rest of the United Kingdom do not give; they simply pass their verdict.
	I am bound to say that in every judgment of the Diplock courts that I have read, I have been particularly heartened by the scrupulous fairness with which the judges approach their work. I pay tribute to them because every one of them, along with their families, still works every day in conditions of privation in contrast to the rest of us who do not have security limitations placed on our ordinary lives and freedoms.
	Noble Lords and, I believe, the noble Baroness, were good enough to refer to the fact that I dealt with Section 76 in my introductory remarks. The question of Section 103, which has raised a particular question related to part-time employees is, I think, a reasonable question that ought to be looked at. That will be done.
	The particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were, first, the Diplock courts. The security assessment is quite unambiguous. We have to remind ourselves that Northern Ireland has a very small population and one of its characteristics is that people tend to know what other people are doing. That is in the nature of things. I do not doubt at all that Diplock courts are justifiable if we are to have a criminal justice system operating at the moment. That is because the opportunities for intimidation, overt or covert and on a continuing basis, are plain in Northern Ireland.
	Section 67, covering bail in scheduled offences, raises two aspects. The first is that it is limited to the High Court. I believe that it is a prudent step to take. High Court judges are not capable of being intimidated in the ways that magistrates might be. I believe that it would be unfair to put magistrates into a position where they might be subject to threat. Perhaps I may also say with respect that High Court judges can ensure a consistency of approach to questions of bail which, again, is extremely important in this area.
	Secondly, it is suggested, I think wrongly, that there is a presumption against bail. There is not. It is a matter left entirely within the discretion of the High Court judge and there is no presumption against bail.
	The final question covered the matter of arrest under Section 82 which I agree is more extensive than that found in the rest of the United Kingdom. The security assessment is that this is required. On my recollection, it is endorsed by the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland—I shall not go into them in any detail because they were eloquently addressed when we discussed these matters on a contemporaneous basis during the Report stage of the legislation—these powers are needed. The sooner that the powers are no longer needed, the more we shall all rejoice. But one has to be realistic and this is a matter of public protection, on which no government can sensibly or responsibly be silent.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Overseas Territories Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes before two o'clock until Monday, 25th February next.